Any DCS World keys purchased from other sources are invalid and are simply trying to re-sell keys that are bound to other users or purchased through fraud. Such sites include Kinguin, CDExpress and G2A.

If you purchase DCS World keys from these sites, we cannot help you. We suggest you contact these sites for a refund.

ED doesn't have to prove anything to you. They made the sim and its out there. You are the one saying it's wrong therefore you have to prove it. Not ED.

ED said it's correct, so you have to prove that they aren't.

NO! ED said it's correct, so they are the first who must prove that what they did is right, and only then I may come with my arguments and own analysis, but we haven't yet passed the first step. Even if I come with real charts and data they will still find another excuse not to listen and try to make me look like the wrong one once again, so it won't be it!

__________________
DCS modules owned: all, regardless of the fact that some are still a WIP and don't deserve 10 bucks!

When you're out of words when discussing something, let the maths talk for you.
I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly as real as possible.
Sincerely, your flight model fanatic!

NO! ED said it's correct, so they are the first who must prove that what they did is right, and only then I may come with my arguments and own analysis, but we haven't yet passed the first step. Even if I come with real charts and data they will still find another excuse not to listen and try to make me look like the wrong one once again, so it won't be it!

When it is suspected that you committed a crime, how does it go ? Do you have to prove your are not guilty first ? without the other party providing any proof that you could be appart from "I think he did it" ?

When it is suspected that you committed a crime, how does it go ? Do you have to prove your are not guilty first ? without the other party providing any proof that you could be appart from "I think he did it" ?

Actually, the logic here is: if you claim something, you have to prove it. ED claims they sell a simulator. They have to prove it's a simulator.

Of course there are flaws in ED's design and some of us just want ED to acknowledge them and correct them. Defending ED in the manner that you do is the most ignorant thing to do. Questioning everything is the key to learn and to improve... everything.

Actually, the logic here is: if you claim something, you have to prove it. ED claims they sell a simulator. They have to prove it's a simulator.

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement.
Microsoft combat flight sim 1 was a simulator, just not a very complex one.
DCS is obviously a SIM (the A-10C module being derived from a military simulator)

What you're suggesting is that they claim it's perfect, which they don't.
They say it's as good as is practically possible given current technology.
They also say they will - and have in the past - change aspects if proof of a discrepancy is provided.

So the sim exists as it exists until ED change it.

If ED are to change it, they can either do so when they're presented with facts, or they can do so in response to the shoutiest voices.

The loudest voices will say "too much" today, and "too little" tomorrow. Allowing the loudest voices to lead rarely results in the best outcome for the followers.

making changes in response to presented facts makes the most sense.

WRT ED 'proving' their modelling is correct, I suspect nothing short of, and perhaps including, presenting their entire database, methodology and calculations would satisfy some people - but it would satisfy anyone else that wanted a shortcut to setting themselves up in competition.

Actually, the logic here is: if you claim something, you have to prove it. ED claims they sell a simulator. They have to prove it's a simulator.

That would be true if it was your forum about sims and ED as a user made such statement there. You as an admin report "no, it's not". Then they "have to" prove otherwise to stand correct.

Quote:

Of course there are flaws in ED's design and some of us just want ED to acknowledge them and correct them. Defending ED in the manner that you do is the most ignorant thing to do. Questioning everything is the key to learn and to improve... everything.

And everyone agree with that. You just have to prove it's wrong in a well documented way and not with just "Of course there are flaws" which is the case here. Otherwise you're ignored because there are a lot of people who "think" there is something wrong and it'd be unwise to sacrifice time and resources of a company to prove them wrong every time a false statement is made.

why isn't ED bothering to send one of their "experts" in to assist and explain

Because every two weeks some world renowned theoretician shows up to argue the same shit over and over again. You and Jack are textbook examples of what I frequently refer to : "somebody starting a drama thread about *insert topic* as if they were the first person to have the thought". Every single time they claim to be field leading experts, too!

Even IF you two actually do have a clue what you're talking about (although I'm doubtful) best case your bloated egos get in the way of any points you might be trying to make. And thus far, though I haven't trawled the dozens of pages of detritus here, all I've seen is conjecture and hearsay combined with some napkin math and theorising from the two of you.

I'm with Esac, you guys should go off to a romantic tropical island together and make your dream game... Or maybe go invest some more time in these "better sims" you were such dramatic influences on, since DCS is such a disappointment. You won't be missed.

__________________
I do solemnly swear to strafe every pilot I shoot down, destructible or not, circumstances permitting, because reasonz. Opponents are advised to assume the position upon landing, or preferably, while still in the air.

Not just that there are flaws but missing fundimental free body motion physics over basic inertia tensor matrices. Model position and angular velocity values spikes in and around all axes in such way that every time you can say wtf at loud. Models are massles and trajectory control is a myth. Drag/lift curves are not near actual wind tunnel tests - even it would be acceptable error margin of 20% for a rudimental sim by far away from RL software CFD calculation attempts. Model performance is not even close near that crude calculation but way below actual data. The worst thing is that not all geometrically simmilar models preform in simmilar way but each have their own set of rules of physics. Its such a mess there. Next big flaw is actual density of air that greatly affects lift and drag curves thus we have RL climb champions greatly fall behind some ingame models that behave like interplanetary rockets, T/W ratio is completly neglected. Shall we go on structural strenght attempt integration that touches only Su family line by braking glass wing 'feature': pull stuck hard to limit - wings fall off and damn fuel fire goes on (where did that came from?) even weight of fuel is 1t with 2 remaining missiles under belly but on other side some models pull 12g thru all flight envelope without any structural damage. Shell we touch pure balistics of missiles? Test it please. All missiles fall short at 30% of nominal range as deceleration is tremendeous, plane catches 120km range missile after 15 secs of flight. Shall we talk about radar return signature as obviously on some models screaming return signal is silenced as what you optically can see your radar cant even notice. Same story on IR signature. List goes on and on.. Missile guidence and countermeasures resistance is per some modeles close to rule regardles of intercept aspect so eg. just drop pair of flares and youre safe against any inbound IR seeker. Proximity fuse, warhead blast energy impact or cumulative effects are all different per module.. But look this, dcs in its previous incarnations have come pretty close to actual performance charts so they have prooven its cause but during the time things got so biase and polarised that this product does not dserve its titile, and we know that coders are actually capable to come close to actual performance. This game is so toxic that it deserves warning disclaimer. And at the end, some (ed?) guys claiming that DCS is a sim and that customers need to proove it first is such outrageus claim that just cant stand any rational brain. Nobody asked ED to say what methods they have used to acomplish flight model performance but only and only final verification of FM against either RL wind tests or certified software tests-simple as that, and in conclusion the ingame vs real chart data deviation as This post initiative brought up by simple comparison. Its trivial but no ED guy gets that serious so why would customers too, civilian or mil in the same manner. Get real. Bring us proof of simulation or place disclaimers around as everyones intention by critics is not to start lawsuits but to fix what is wrong in this 'sim'. When will ed get that straight?

Somehow I figured you wouldn't actually leave. You're having too much fun.